Timeline Dreadnought Cruiser So Big...

navar · December 2016

Am I the only person who feels that the Devs made the Kelvin Timeline Dreadnought Cruiser overly large? I mean, the ships grew larger as time went on, suddenly we have this ship that is way out of date that is the largest cruiser in STO. I'm not a big fan and I believe the Devs got the specs on it completely wrong. The thing is larger than the Odyssey Class Cruiser and any of the Star Cruiser variants. That's just ridiculous and surely does not represent canon?

saurializard · December 2016

The ship is twice bigger than the Kelvin timeline Constitution according to Kelvin Khan. That is canon.

The other thing you can argue about is the size of the Constitution and nobody agrees about that:

1,200 meters: On 10 September 2007, a metric size chart depicted the ship to be 1,200 meters in length (3,937 feet). This early chart was reproduced for Star Trek - The Art of the Film (p. 145).

1,524 – 914.4 meters: In October 2007, the size of the Enterprise was still very much undefined. According to Star Trek illustrator John Eaves, at that time, it was considered to be somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 feet (914.4 to 1,524 meters).

914.4 meters: On 1 May 2009, a Post Magazine article entitled Star Trek Returns – which included an interview with Russell Earl, the co-VFX supervisor of Star Trek – cited the ship as being 3,000 feet in length (914.4 meters).

762 meters: On 14 January 2008, an Industrial Light & Magic size chart of the Enterprise depicted the ship to be 2,500 feet (762 meters) in length. Alex Jaeger shows this chart in the Starships bonus feature on the Star Trek Blu-ray release. Before the release of the Blu-ray (on his blog), Jaeger had quoted the same figure from an unspecified early chart, adding that the size may have later been somewhat reduced. Experience the Enterprise also used these dimensions: length: 2,500 feet (762 meters), saucer diameter: 1,100 feet (335.3 meters) and height: 625 feet (190.5 meters). The USS Enterprise-A is also stated to be this size.

725.35 meters: In November 2009, when Star Trek was released on Blu-ray, the length of the ship as 2,379.75 feet (725.35 meters) was a more prominently portrayed figure in the "Starships" bonus feature. It was also the size given in Star Trek - The Art of the Film (p. 160, Note 4). Gizmodo blog writer Jesus Diaz was the first to reveal this number, citing his source as being "David B." of Bad Robot Productions. Bob Plant of Round 2 Models provided exactly the same figure, saying it was specified by the licensor of their planned model kit, who in turn had obtained it from ILM. "My gosh, yes – JJ did make the ship that big. According to our (very reliable) source, the 'actual' size of the ship is 2,379.75 feet long. It’s a whopper. A 1/2500-scale kit would put the assembled model at about 11.5″ inches long, which is just right for standard size packaging." In a separate interview, Plant also asked Enterprise designer Ryan Church, who said that he was unable to address the issue of the changed size (compared to that of the original series Enterprise) and that ILM or J.J. Abrams could probably better answer the question.

718.4 meters: On 26 May 2009, in an article in CG Society on ILM's visual effects work for the film Star Trek, the length of the ship was stated to be 2,357 feet (718.4 meters). "One challenge was to sell the weight and scale of the ships that ranged from a 30 foot shuttle to the new Enterprise at 2,357 feet long, to the nemesis ship, the Narada, five miles long."

609.6 meters: On 13 May 2009, in an interview for Studio Daily, ILM model supervisor Bruce Holcomb stated that the ship was 2,000 feet in length (609.6 meters).

365.8 meters: In July 2009, in the article on Star Trek in Cinefex #118, it was noted that "the reconfigured ship was a larger vessel than previous manifestations — approximately 1,200-feet-long (365.8 meters) compared to the 947-foot ship (288.6 meters) of the original series." The statement is immediately followed by a quote from Visual Effects Art Director Alex Jaeger: "Once we got the ship built and started putting it in environments, it felt too small. The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale – shuttlecraft initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined – so we bumped up the Enterprise scale, which gave her a grander feel and allowed us to include more detail."

294 meters: In May 2013, a 1:500 scale model was released by Revell of the USS Enterprise. The model was 588 millimeters long. This equals to a length of 294 meters or 965 feet.

Cryptic just chose close to the Blu-Ray and ILM numbers for reference.

rogue6800 · December 2016

No, it was JJ's stupid design decision to have mahoosive ships.

navar · December 2016

saurializard wrote: »

The ship is twice bigger than the Kelvin timeline Constitution according to Kelvin Khan. That is canon.

The other thing you can argue about is the size of the Constitution and nobody agrees about that:

1,200 meters: On 10 September 2007, a metric size chart depicted the ship to be 1,200 meters in length (3,937 feet). This early chart was reproduced for Star Trek - The Art of the Film (p. 145).

1,524 – 914.4 meters: In October 2007, the size of the Enterprise was still very much undefined. According to Star Trek illustrator John Eaves, at that time, it was considered to be somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 feet (914.4 to 1,524 meters).

914.4 meters: On 1 May 2009, a Post Magazine article entitled Star Trek Returns – which included an interview with Russell Earl, the co-VFX supervisor of Star Trek – cited the ship as being 3,000 feet in length (914.4 meters).

762 meters: On 14 January 2008, an Industrial Light & Magic size chart of the Enterprise depicted the ship to be 2,500 feet (762 meters) in length. Alex Jaeger shows this chart in the Starships bonus feature on the Star Trek Blu-ray release. Before the release of the Blu-ray (on his blog), Jaeger had quoted the same figure from an unspecified early chart, adding that the size may have later been somewhat reduced. Experience the Enterprise also used these dimensions: length: 2,500 feet (762 meters), saucer diameter: 1,100 feet (335.3 meters) and height: 625 feet (190.5 meters). The USS Enterprise-A is also stated to be this size.

725.35 meters: In November 2009, when Star Trek was released on Blu-ray, the length of the ship as 2,379.75 feet (725.35 meters) was a more prominently portrayed figure in the "Starships" bonus feature. It was also the size given in Star Trek - The Art of the Film (p. 160, Note 4). Gizmodo blog writer Jesus Diaz was the first to reveal this number, citing his source as being "David B." of Bad Robot Productions. Bob Plant of Round 2 Models provided exactly the same figure, saying it was specified by the licensor of their planned model kit, who in turn had obtained it from ILM. "My gosh, yes – JJ did make the ship that big. According to our (very reliable) source, the 'actual' size of the ship is 2,379.75 feet long. It’s a whopper. A 1/2500-scale kit would put the assembled model at about 11.5″ inches long, which is just right for standard size packaging." In a separate interview, Plant also asked Enterprise designer Ryan Church, who said that he was unable to address the issue of the changed size (compared to that of the original series Enterprise) and that ILM or J.J. Abrams could probably better answer the question.

718.4 meters: On 26 May 2009, in an article in CG Society on ILM's visual effects work for the film Star Trek, the length of the ship was stated to be 2,357 feet (718.4 meters). "One challenge was to sell the weight and scale of the ships that ranged from a 30 foot shuttle to the new Enterprise at 2,357 feet long, to the nemesis ship, the Narada, five miles long."

609.6 meters: On 13 May 2009, in an interview for Studio Daily, ILM model supervisor Bruce Holcomb stated that the ship was 2,000 feet in length (609.6 meters).

365.8 meters: In July 2009, in the article on Star Trek in Cinefex #118, it was noted that "the reconfigured ship was a larger vessel than previous manifestations — approximately 1,200-feet-long (365.8 meters) compared to the 947-foot ship (288.6 meters) of the original series." The statement is immediately followed by a quote from Visual Effects Art Director Alex Jaeger: "Once we got the ship built and started putting it in environments, it felt too small. The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale – shuttlecraft initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined – so we bumped up the Enterprise scale, which gave her a grander feel and allowed us to include more detail."

294 meters: In May 2013, a 1:500 scale model was released by Revell of the USS Enterprise. The model was 588 millimeters long. This equals to a length of 294 meters or 965 feet.

Cryptic just chose close to the Blu-Ray and ILM numbers for reference.

Scaling to true size is important to me. If everything scales completely wrong, the immersion of a game can be distorted. It's like when I was a kid, and I bought Devastator, then I realized that Jetfire was just as big as Devastator, even though in the cartoons, Devastator would have towered over Jetfire. It ruined the immersion of the toys to me and I lost interest in playing with them. I really wish the Devs would pay closer attention to scales in this game...it makes no sense for the Kelvin Dreadnought to be larger than an Odyssey Class Starship.

saurializard · December 2016

therealwraiven wrote: »

saurializard wrote: »

The ship is twice bigger than the Kelvin timeline Constitution according to Kelvin Khan. That is canon.

The other thing you can argue about is the size of the Constitution and nobody agrees about that:

1,200 meters: On 10 September 2007, a metric size chart depicted the ship to be 1,200 meters in length (3,937 feet). This early chart was reproduced for Star Trek - The Art of the Film (p. 145).

1,524 – 914.4 meters: In October 2007, the size of the Enterprise was still very much undefined. According to Star Trek illustrator John Eaves, at that time, it was considered to be somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 feet (914.4 to 1,524 meters).

914.4 meters: On 1 May 2009, a Post Magazine article entitled Star Trek Returns – which included an interview with Russell Earl, the co-VFX supervisor of Star Trek – cited the ship as being 3,000 feet in length (914.4 meters).

762 meters: On 14 January 2008, an Industrial Light & Magic size chart of the Enterprise depicted the ship to be 2,500 feet (762 meters) in length. Alex Jaeger shows this chart in the Starships bonus feature on the Star Trek Blu-ray release. Before the release of the Blu-ray (on his blog), Jaeger had quoted the same figure from an unspecified early chart, adding that the size may have later been somewhat reduced. Experience the Enterprise also used these dimensions: length: 2,500 feet (762 meters), saucer diameter: 1,100 feet (335.3 meters) and height: 625 feet (190.5 meters). The USS Enterprise-A is also stated to be this size.

725.35 meters: In November 2009, when Star Trek was released on Blu-ray, the length of the ship as 2,379.75 feet (725.35 meters) was a more prominently portrayed figure in the "Starships" bonus feature. It was also the size given in Star Trek - The Art of the Film (p. 160, Note 4). Gizmodo blog writer Jesus Diaz was the first to reveal this number, citing his source as being "David B." of Bad Robot Productions. Bob Plant of Round 2 Models provided exactly the same figure, saying it was specified by the licensor of their planned model kit, who in turn had obtained it from ILM. "My gosh, yes – JJ did make the ship that big. According to our (very reliable) source, the 'actual' size of the ship is 2,379.75 feet long. It’s a whopper. A 1/2500-scale kit would put the assembled model at about 11.5″ inches long, which is just right for standard size packaging." In a separate interview, Plant also asked Enterprise designer Ryan Church, who said that he was unable to address the issue of the changed size (compared to that of the original series Enterprise) and that ILM or J.J. Abrams could probably better answer the question.

718.4 meters: On 26 May 2009, in an article in CG Society on ILM's visual effects work for the film Star Trek, the length of the ship was stated to be 2,357 feet (718.4 meters). "One challenge was to sell the weight and scale of the ships that ranged from a 30 foot shuttle to the new Enterprise at 2,357 feet long, to the nemesis ship, the Narada, five miles long."

609.6 meters: On 13 May 2009, in an interview for Studio Daily, ILM model supervisor Bruce Holcomb stated that the ship was 2,000 feet in length (609.6 meters).

365.8 meters: In July 2009, in the article on Star Trek in Cinefex #118, it was noted that "the reconfigured ship was a larger vessel than previous manifestations — approximately 1,200-feet-long (365.8 meters) compared to the 947-foot ship (288.6 meters) of the original series." The statement is immediately followed by a quote from Visual Effects Art Director Alex Jaeger: "Once we got the ship built and started putting it in environments, it felt too small. The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale – shuttlecraft initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined – so we bumped up the Enterprise scale, which gave her a grander feel and allowed us to include more detail."

294 meters: In May 2013, a 1:500 scale model was released by Revell of the USS Enterprise. The model was 588 millimeters long. This equals to a length of 294 meters or 965 feet.

Cryptic just chose close to the Blu-Ray and ILM numbers for reference.

Scaling to true size is important to me. If everything scales completely wrong, the immersion of a game can be distorted. It's like when I was a kid, and I bought Devastator, then I realized that Jetfire was just as big as Devastator, even though in the cartoons, Devastator would have towered over Jetfire. It ruined the immersion of the toys to me and I lost interest in playing with them. I really wish the Devs would pay closer attention to scales in this game...it makes no sense for the Kelvin Dreadnought to be larger than an Odyssey Class Starship.

Did you just completely ignore the most important part of my reply?

navar · December 2016

saurializard wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

saurializard wrote: »

The ship is twice bigger than the Kelvin timeline Constitution according to Kelvin Khan. That is canon.

The other thing you can argue about is the size of the Constitution and nobody agrees about that:

1,200 meters: On 10 September 2007, a metric size chart depicted the ship to be 1,200 meters in length (3,937 feet). This early chart was reproduced for Star Trek - The Art of the Film (p. 145).

1,524 – 914.4 meters: In October 2007, the size of the Enterprise was still very much undefined. According to Star Trek illustrator John Eaves, at that time, it was considered to be somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 feet (914.4 to 1,524 meters).

914.4 meters: On 1 May 2009, a Post Magazine article entitled Star Trek Returns – which included an interview with Russell Earl, the co-VFX supervisor of Star Trek – cited the ship as being 3,000 feet in length (914.4 meters).

762 meters: On 14 January 2008, an Industrial Light & Magic size chart of the Enterprise depicted the ship to be 2,500 feet (762 meters) in length. Alex Jaeger shows this chart in the Starships bonus feature on the Star Trek Blu-ray release. Before the release of the Blu-ray (on his blog), Jaeger had quoted the same figure from an unspecified early chart, adding that the size may have later been somewhat reduced. Experience the Enterprise also used these dimensions: length: 2,500 feet (762 meters), saucer diameter: 1,100 feet (335.3 meters) and height: 625 feet (190.5 meters). The USS Enterprise-A is also stated to be this size.

725.35 meters: In November 2009, when Star Trek was released on Blu-ray, the length of the ship as 2,379.75 feet (725.35 meters) was a more prominently portrayed figure in the "Starships" bonus feature. It was also the size given in Star Trek - The Art of the Film (p. 160, Note 4). Gizmodo blog writer Jesus Diaz was the first to reveal this number, citing his source as being "David B." of Bad Robot Productions. Bob Plant of Round 2 Models provided exactly the same figure, saying it was specified by the licensor of their planned model kit, who in turn had obtained it from ILM. "My gosh, yes – JJ did make the ship that big. According to our (very reliable) source, the 'actual' size of the ship is 2,379.75 feet long. It’s a whopper. A 1/2500-scale kit would put the assembled model at about 11.5″ inches long, which is just right for standard size packaging." In a separate interview, Plant also asked Enterprise designer Ryan Church, who said that he was unable to address the issue of the changed size (compared to that of the original series Enterprise) and that ILM or J.J. Abrams could probably better answer the question.

718.4 meters: On 26 May 2009, in an article in CG Society on ILM's visual effects work for the film Star Trek, the length of the ship was stated to be 2,357 feet (718.4 meters). "One challenge was to sell the weight and scale of the ships that ranged from a 30 foot shuttle to the new Enterprise at 2,357 feet long, to the nemesis ship, the Narada, five miles long."

609.6 meters: On 13 May 2009, in an interview for Studio Daily, ILM model supervisor Bruce Holcomb stated that the ship was 2,000 feet in length (609.6 meters).

365.8 meters: In July 2009, in the article on Star Trek in Cinefex #118, it was noted that "the reconfigured ship was a larger vessel than previous manifestations — approximately 1,200-feet-long (365.8 meters) compared to the 947-foot ship (288.6 meters) of the original series." The statement is immediately followed by a quote from Visual Effects Art Director Alex Jaeger: "Once we got the ship built and started putting it in environments, it felt too small. The shuttle bay gave us a clear relative scale – shuttlecraft initially appeared much bigger than we had imagined – so we bumped up the Enterprise scale, which gave her a grander feel and allowed us to include more detail."

294 meters: In May 2013, a 1:500 scale model was released by Revell of the USS Enterprise. The model was 588 millimeters long. This equals to a length of 294 meters or 965 feet.

Cryptic just chose close to the Blu-Ray and ILM numbers for reference.

Scaling to true size is important to me. If everything scales completely wrong, the immersion of a game can be distorted. It's like when I was a kid, and I bought Devastator, then I realized that Jetfire was just as big as Devastator, even though in the cartoons, Devastator would have towered over Jetfire. It ruined the immersion of the toys to me and I lost interest in playing with them. I really wish the Devs would pay closer attention to scales in this game...it makes no sense for the Kelvin Dreadnought to be larger than an Odyssey Class Starship.

Did you just completely ignore the most important part of my reply?

Unless I misinterpreted what you wrote, you were saying that the one we have in game, is wrong.

redvenge · December 2016

therealwraiven wrote: »

Unless I misinterpreted what you wrote, you were saying that the one we have in game, is wrong.

@saurializard said, "The JJ Vengeance is TWICE THE SIZE of the JJ-Prise". Then said ,"No one knows the correct size of the JJ-Prise, cuz they said 20 different things." Also, the ship changes size on the friggin screen. So, Cryptic had to pick ONE size to go with. They went with the most popular one. Also, see Into Darkness and watch the saucer section of the Vengeance tower over the tallest buildings in San-Fran by a factor of 2. That ship, as designed by JJ and crew, is ginormous. Many, MANY times larger than a Galaxy or an Odyssey.

navar · December 2016

redvenge wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

Unless I misinterpreted what you wrote, you were saying that the one we have in game, is wrong.

@saurializard said, "The JJ Vengeance is TWICE THE SIZE of the JJ-Prise". Then said ,"No one knows the correct size of the JJ-Prise, cuz they said 20 different things." Also, the ship changes size on the friggin screen. So, Cryptic had to pick ONE size to go with. They went with the most popular one. Also, see Into Darkness and watch the saucer section of the Vengeance tower over the tallest buildings in San-Fran by a factor of 2. That ship, as designed by JJ and crew, is ginormous. Many, MANY times larger than a Galaxy or an Odyssey.

Yet another reason for me to hate JJ

navar · December 2016

azrael605 wrote: »

Like I already said, Cryptic's ship designer stated that he sized the ships as he was told to by CBS & Paramount.

I truly enjoyed Star Trek from the time I was a kid watching the original series, all the way up to Voyager and the movies. It was not until JJ took control that I grew a real dislike to Star Trek...and now he has done the same thing to Star Wars. I can no longer say that I am a die hard Star Trek or Star Wars fan thanks to JJ. The size of this ship did not determine that, however, it does add to it.

potasssium · December 2016

How does it compare in size to the Scimitar or Sheshar?

Honestly the Starfox ships, I mean Herald Dreadnought is what made me give up caring about size.

nightken · December 2016

therealwraiven wrote: »

azrael605 wrote: »

Like I already said, Cryptic's ship designer stated that he sized the ships as he was told to by CBS & Paramount.

I truly enjoyed Star Trek from the time I was a kid watching the original series, all the way up to Voyager and the movies. It was not until JJ took control that I grew a real dislike to Star Trek...and now he has done the same thing to Star Wars. I can no longer say that I am a die hard Star Trek or Star Wars fan thanks to JJ. The size of this ship did not determine that, however, it does add to it.

which is funny jj hasn't done anything gene roddenberry and george lucas wouldn't have done if the had the same tech back in the day... actually gene would have probably had less clothes more blondes. and george... would have rip off jj cause well what didn't he copy and shove into star wars.

redvenge · December 2016

potasssium wrote: »

Honestly the Starfox ships, I mean Herald Dreadnought is what made me give up caring about size.

Everything about the Iconians, and the Icoian War is stupid. This is just par for the course.

nikephorus · December 2016

There are a lot of scale issues in game.

navar · December 2016

nightken wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

azrael605 wrote: »

Like I already said, Cryptic's ship designer stated that he sized the ships as he was told to by CBS & Paramount.

I truly enjoyed Star Trek from the time I was a kid watching the original series, all the way up to Voyager and the movies. It was not until JJ took control that I grew a real dislike to Star Trek...and now he has done the same thing to Star Wars. I can no longer say that I am a die hard Star Trek or Star Wars fan thanks to JJ. The size of this ship did not determine that, however, it does add to it.

which is funny jj hasn't done anything gene roddenberry and george lucas wouldn't have done if the had the same tech back in the day... actually gene would have probably had less clothes more blondes. and george... would have rip off jj cause well what didn't he copy and shove into star wars.

I can't help to raise an eyebrow at this...

hanover2 · December 2016

I think they got it about right. She's supposed to be a biggun. Strangely, also designed to function with a minimal crew compliment. Best not to dwell too long on such trivia.

navar · December 2016

azrael605 wrote: »

@therealwraiven

I've been a fan of Trek my entire life, I'm a fan of the entire franchise, & not a thing has happened to change that. Besides how can you seriously complain about ship sizes when they changed size during episodes on every freaking series including TOS?

I have also been a fan my entire life, and if you cannot see what happened to change that for me, then I wouldn't expect you to understand even if I explained it to you. You would simply attempt to change my mind with things I have already considered and the conversation would not only go nowhere...but would be a complete waste of our time.

saurializard · December 2016

nikephorus wrote: »

There are a lot of scale issues in game.

Starting with the shuttle and fighter sizes compared to the ships. I think the only time a shuttle is close enough to a proper size is during the current Fed tutorial when your shuttle reaches your Miranda.
Even the supposito...Err, Daniels and Dano's timeship and the Aeon are several times bigger than their canon counterparts. And despite this, the Aeon is still one of the smallest ships and still causes visual troubles with weapon FX (mostly the beam or bolt being as large as it is).

nightken · December 2016

therealwraiven wrote: »

nightken wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

azrael605 wrote: »

Like I already said, Cryptic's ship designer stated that he sized the ships as he was told to by CBS & Paramount.

I truly enjoyed Star Trek from the time I was a kid watching the original series, all the way up to Voyager and the movies. It was not until JJ took control that I grew a real dislike to Star Trek...and now he has done the same thing to Star Wars. I can no longer say that I am a die hard Star Trek or Star Wars fan thanks to JJ. The size of this ship did not determine that, however, it does add to it.

which is funny jj hasn't done anything gene roddenberry and george lucas wouldn't have done if the had the same tech back in the day... actually gene would have probably had less clothes more blondes. and george... would have rip off jj cause well what didn't he copy and shove into star wars.

I can't help to raise an eyebrow at this...

raise as many eyebrows as you want. gene was a known... we'll say lover of female companionship with fondness for blondes, and well tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheissTitillationTheory.

and I really can't think of anything george lucas didn't copy from westerns to samurai moive to possibly even anime. it is actually kinda impressive.

navar · December 2016

saurializard wrote: »

nikephorus wrote: »

(mostly the beam or bolt being as large as it is).

I giggle every time I see this, lol

navar · December 2016

nightken wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

nightken wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

azrael605 wrote: »

Like I already said, Cryptic's ship designer stated that he sized the ships as he was told to by CBS & Paramount.

I truly enjoyed Star Trek from the time I was a kid watching the original series, all the way up to Voyager and the movies. It was not until JJ took control that I grew a real dislike to Star Trek...and now he has done the same thing to Star Wars. I can no longer say that I am a die hard Star Trek or Star Wars fan thanks to JJ. The size of this ship did not determine that, however, it does add to it.

which is funny jj hasn't done anything gene roddenberry and george lucas wouldn't have done if the had the same tech back in the day... actually gene would have probably had less clothes more blondes. and george... would have rip off jj cause well what didn't he copy and shove into star wars.

I can't help to raise an eyebrow at this...

raise as many eyebrows as you want. gene was a known... we'll say lover of female companionship with fondness for blondes, and well tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheissTitillationTheory.

and I really can't think of anything george lucas didn't copy from westerns to samurai moive to possibly even anime. it is actually kinda impressive.

However, you stated that Lucas would have ripped off JJ's ideas. You also need to understand that everything you see and hear in today's music and entertainment has been inspired by other movies and sounds. As far as Gene goes, what can I say, everyone has a preference. However, his movies and everything after the first few seasons of TNG ended that. You need to understand that sex sells. It always has and it always will, Gene understood this...probably since it sold him as well. And if you want to argue that sex does not sell, take a look at Kim Kardashian...or whatever her name is. Always top headline on Yahoo news...and nobody even likes her. Therefore, I raised an eyebrow.

salazarraze · December 2016

Personally I like how big the "Vengeance" is. It's pretty much the only thing that I like about the new JJ movies.

nightken · December 2016

therealwraiven wrote: »

nightken wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

nightken wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

azrael605 wrote: »

Like I already said, Cryptic's ship designer stated that he sized the ships as he was told to by CBS & Paramount.

I truly enjoyed Star Trek from the time I was a kid watching the original series, all the way up to Voyager and the movies. It was not until JJ took control that I grew a real dislike to Star Trek...and now he has done the same thing to Star Wars. I can no longer say that I am a die hard Star Trek or Star Wars fan thanks to JJ. The size of this ship did not determine that, however, it does add to it.

which is funny jj hasn't done anything gene roddenberry and george lucas wouldn't have done if the had the same tech back in the day... actually gene would have probably had less clothes more blondes. and george... would have rip off jj cause well what didn't he copy and shove into star wars.

I can't help to raise an eyebrow at this...

raise as many eyebrows as you want. gene was a known... we'll say lover of female companionship with fondness for blondes, and well tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheissTitillationTheory.

and I really can't think of anything george lucas didn't copy from westerns to samurai moive to possibly even anime. it is actually kinda impressive.

However, you stated that Lucas would have ripped off JJ's ideas. You also need to understand that everything you see and hear in today's music and entertainment has been inspired by other movies and sounds. As far as Gene goes, what can I say, everyone has a preference. However, his movies and everything after the first few seasons of TNG ended that. You need to understand that sex sells. It always has and it always will, Gene understood this...probably since it sold him as well. And if you want to argue that sex does not sell, take a look at Kim Kardashian...or whatever her name is. Always top headline on Yahoo news...and nobody even likes her. Therefore, I raised an eyebrow.

I understand that very well but you and great many scifi fans need to understand the older stuff isn't some perfect pure icon of... whatever it is you think it was. everything and I do many everything that that people say the reboot did that "ruined" the series the originals did just as much. worst you can say about em to the bought them back to their roots. it which "real" fans should be happy about.

you mean after gene got kicked upstairs and couldn't do those sorts of things anymore?

and yet a whole lot of people were all about that sex tape years ago and still want to know what she's up too. sounds like your arguement for sex not selling on proves that it does even if no like likes to admit it does.

navar · December 2016

nightken wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

nightken wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

nightken wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

azrael605 wrote: »

Like I already said, Cryptic's ship designer stated that he sized the ships as he was told to by CBS & Paramount.

I truly enjoyed Star Trek from the time I was a kid watching the original series, all the way up to Voyager and the movies. It was not until JJ took control that I grew a real dislike to Star Trek...and now he has done the same thing to Star Wars. I can no longer say that I am a die hard Star Trek or Star Wars fan thanks to JJ. The size of this ship did not determine that, however, it does add to it.

which is funny jj hasn't done anything gene roddenberry and george lucas wouldn't have done if the had the same tech back in the day... actually gene would have probably had less clothes more blondes. and george... would have rip off jj cause well what didn't he copy and shove into star wars.

I can't help to raise an eyebrow at this...

raise as many eyebrows as you want. gene was a known... we'll say lover of female companionship with fondness for blondes, and well tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheissTitillationTheory.

and I really can't think of anything george lucas didn't copy from westerns to samurai moive to possibly even anime. it is actually kinda impressive.

However, you stated that Lucas would have ripped off JJ's ideas. You also need to understand that everything you see and hear in today's music and entertainment has been inspired by other movies and sounds. As far as Gene goes, what can I say, everyone has a preference. However, his movies and everything after the first few seasons of TNG ended that. You need to understand that sex sells. It always has and it always will, Gene understood this...probably since it sold him as well. And if you want to argue that sex does not sell, take a look at Kim Kardashian...or whatever her name is. Always top headline on Yahoo news...and nobody even likes her. Therefore, I raised an eyebrow.

I understand that very well but you and great many scifi fans need to understand the older stuff isn't some perfect pure icon of... whatever it is you think it was. everything and I do many everything that that people say the reboot did that "ruined" the series the originals did just as much. worst you can say about em to the bought them back to their roots. it which "real" fans should be happy about.

you mean after gene got kicked upstairs and couldn't do those sorts of things anymore?

and yet a whole lot of people were all about that sex tape years ago and still want to know what she's up too. sounds like your arguement for sex not selling on proves that it does even if no like likes to admit it does.

Mind unchanged.

nightken · December 2016

therealwraiven wrote: »

nightken wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

nightken wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

nightken wrote: »

therealwraiven wrote: »

azrael605 wrote: »

Like I already said, Cryptic's ship designer stated that he sized the ships as he was told to by CBS & Paramount.

I truly enjoyed Star Trek from the time I was a kid watching the original series, all the way up to Voyager and the movies. It was not until JJ took control that I grew a real dislike to Star Trek...and now he has done the same thing to Star Wars. I can no longer say that I am a die hard Star Trek or Star Wars fan thanks to JJ. The size of this ship did not determine that, however, it does add to it.

which is funny jj hasn't done anything gene roddenberry and george lucas wouldn't have done if the had the same tech back in the day... actually gene would have probably had less clothes more blondes. and george... would have rip off jj cause well what didn't he copy and shove into star wars.

I can't help to raise an eyebrow at this...

raise as many eyebrows as you want. gene was a known... we'll say lover of female companionship with fondness for blondes, and well tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheissTitillationTheory.

and I really can't think of anything george lucas didn't copy from westerns to samurai moive to possibly even anime. it is actually kinda impressive.

However, you stated that Lucas would have ripped off JJ's ideas. You also need to understand that everything you see and hear in today's music and entertainment has been inspired by other movies and sounds. As far as Gene goes, what can I say, everyone has a preference. However, his movies and everything after the first few seasons of TNG ended that. You need to understand that sex sells. It always has and it always will, Gene understood this...probably since it sold him as well. And if you want to argue that sex does not sell, take a look at Kim Kardashian...or whatever her name is. Always top headline on Yahoo news...and nobody even likes her. Therefore, I raised an eyebrow.

I understand that very well but you and great many scifi fans need to understand the older stuff isn't some perfect pure icon of... whatever it is you think it was. everything and I do many everything that that people say the reboot did that "ruined" the series the originals did just as much. worst you can say about em to the bought them back to their roots. it which "real" fans should be happy about.

you mean after gene got kicked upstairs and couldn't do those sorts of things anymore?

and yet a whole lot of people were all about that sex tape years ago and still want to know what she's up too. sounds like your arguement for sex not selling on proves that it does even if no like likes to admit it does.

Mind unchanged.

tell me something I don't know why don't you.

nikeix · December 2016

Enjoy your headcanon. The people whose opinion matters got exactly what they asked for as the Vengeance's size in-game.

soulxsino · December 2016

The kelvin dread looks exactly as how it did in the movies. I see no scaling issue there in the game. And I'm glad that they now properly scale it with sections like the shuttle bay. Small size ship(tos) with a number of shuttles never made sense in scaling either.

antonine3258 · December 2016

potasssium wrote: »

How does it compare in size to the Scimitar or Sheshar?

Honestly the Starfox ships, I mean Herald Dreadnought is what made me give up caring about size.

I've seen the KT Dreads near Romulan ships (our fleet was taking some pictures recently) - the Scimitar's wingspan still gives it an edge, but the saucer is almost the same radius as the main-body on the Scimitar.

And even CBCs seem a tad reduced in comparison.

Timeline Dreadnought Cruiser So Big...

Comments